UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-Q

 

(Mark one)

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2016

OR

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM          TO             

Commission File Number: 0-23245

 

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (847) 781-3600

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company, as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.    Yes  o    No  x

Number of shares of registrant’s common stock, par value $0.01, outstanding as of April 28, 2016: 68,348,632

 

 

---

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION

FORM 10-Q

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

---

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share amounts)

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

1

---

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) AND COMPREHENSIVE   INCOME (LOSS)

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

2

---

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

3

---

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 

 

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPANY

Career Education’s academic institutions offer a quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of disciplines through online, campus-based and hybrid learning programs. Our two universities – American InterContinental University (“AIU”) and Colorado Technical University (“CTU”) – provide degree programs through the master’s or doctoral level as well as associate and bachelor’s levels. Both universities predominantly serve students online with career-focused degree programs that are designed to meet the educational demands of today’s busy adults. AIU and CTU continue to show innovation in higher education, advancing new personalized learning technologies like their intellipath™ adaptive learning platform that allow students to more efficiently pursue earning a degree by receiving course credit for knowledge they can already demonstrate. Career Education is committed to providing quality education that closes the gap between learners who seek to advance their careers and employers needing a qualified workforce.

Additionally, CEC is in the process of teaching out campuses within our Transitional Group and Culinary Arts segments. Students enrolled at these campuses are afforded the reasonable opportunity to complete their program of study prior to the final teach-out date.

A listing of individual campus locations and web links to Career Education’s colleges, institutions and universities can be found at www.careered.com.

As used in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the terms “we,” “us,” “our,” “the Company” and “CEC” refer to Career Education Corporation and our wholly-owned subsidiaries. The terms “college,” “institution” and “university” refer to an individual, branded, for-profit educational institution, owned by us and includes its campus locations. The term “campus” refers to an individual main or branch campus operated by one of our colleges, institutions or universities.

 

 

2. BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, the financial statements do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, including normal recurring accruals, considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2016.

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements presented herein include the accounts of CEC and our wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, “CEC”). All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.

Our reporting segments are determined in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 280 – Segment Reporting and are based upon how the Company analyzes performance and make decisions. We organize our business across four reporting segments: CTU, AIU (comprises University Group); Culinary Arts and Transitional Group (comprises Career Schools Group). Campuses included in our Transitional Group and Culinary Arts are currently being taught out and no longer enroll new students. These campuses employ a gradual teach-out process, enabling them to continue to operate while current students have a reasonable opportunity to complete their course of study. All prior periods have been recast to reflect our segments on a comparable basis.

 

 

3. RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In March 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-09, Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. This ASU simplified several aspects of accounting for share-based payment award transactions including income tax consequences, classification of excess tax benefits on the statement of cash flows, classification of employee taxes paid on the statement of cash flows when the employer withholds shares, forfeiture policy election and payroll minimum statutory tax withholding. For all public business entities, ASU 2016-09 is effective for annual periods and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2016. We are currently evaluating this guidance and believe the adoption will significantly impact the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-07, Investments – Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323): Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting. The amendments in this ASU eliminate the requirement that when an investment qualifies for use of the equity method as a result of an increase in the level of ownership interest or degree of influence, an investor must adjust the investments, results of operations, and retained earnings retroactively on a step-by-step basis as if the equity method was in effect during all previous periods. The amendments require an equity method investor to add the cost of acquisition and

4

---

requires available-for-sale equity securities that qualify for the equity method of accounting to recognize earnings as unrealized holding gain or loss in accumulated other comprehensive income. For all entities, ASU 2016-07 is effective for annual periods and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2016. We are currently evaluating this guidance and do not believe the adoption will significantly impact the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). The objective of Topic 842 is to establish the principles that lessees and lessors shall apply to report useful information to users of financial statements about the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from a lease. The core principle of Topic 842 is that lessees should recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from leases. All leases create an asset and liability for the lessee in accordance with FASB Concept Statements No. 6 Elements of Financial Statements, and, therefore, recognition of those lease assets and liabilities represents an improvement over previous GAAP. The accounting applied for lessors largely remained unchanged. The amendment in this ASU requires recognition of a lease liability and a right to use asset at the commencement date. For all public entities, ASU 2016-02 is effective for annual periods and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2018; early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating this guidance and believe the adoption will significantly impact the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.  

In September 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-16, Business Combination (Topic 805): Simplifying the Accounting for Measurement-Period-Adjustments. The amendments in this ASU require that an acquirer recognize adjustments to provisional amounts identified during the measurement period in the reporting period in which the adjustment amounts are determined. This amendment requires that the acquirer record in the same period financial statements, the effects on earnings, as a result of any change in provisional amounts, calculated as if the accounting had been completed at the acquisition date. For public business entities, ASU 2015-16 is effective for annual periods and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2015. For all other entities, the amendments are effective for annual periods and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2016. We have evaluated this guidance and do not believe the adoption will significantly impact the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-11, Inventory (Topic 330): Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory. The amendments in this ASU require an entity to measure in-scope inventory at the lower of cost and net realizable value, further clarifying consideration for net realizable value as estimated selling prices in the ordinary course of business less reasonably predictable costs of completion, disposal and transportation. This ASU more closely aligns the measurement of inventory in GAAP with the measurement of inventory in International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). For public business entities, ASU 2015-11 is effective for annual periods and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The amendment in this ASU is prospectively applied with earlier adoption permitted. We are currently evaluating this guidance and do not believe the adoption will significantly impact the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In June 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-10, Technical Corrections and Improvements. This ASU represents changes to clarify the FASB Codification (“Codification”), correct unintended application of guidance, or make minor improvements to the Codification that are not expected to have a significant effect on current accounting practice or create significant administrative cost to most entities. The amendments are intended to make the Codification easier to understand and easier to apply by eliminating inconsistencies by providing needed clarifications and improving the presentation of guidance. For all entities, ASU 2015-10 is effective for annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015; early adoption is permitted. We have evaluated the changes to the applicable Codifications and these changes did not impact the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-03, Interest – Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs. This ASU is intended to simplify the presentation of debt issuance costs. The amendments in this ASU require that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-15 clarifying that there is no objection to an entity deferring and presenting debt issuance costs related to line-of-credit arrangements as an asset and subsequently amortizing the deferred debt issuance costs ratably over the term of the line-of-credit arrangements, regardless of whether there are any outstanding borrowings on the line-of-credit arrangements. The amendments in ASU 2015-03 are effective for annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015; early adoption is permitted. We have adopted ASU 2015-03; adopting this ASU did not materially impact the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In January 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-01, Income Statement – Extraordinary and Unusual Items (Subtopic 225-20): Simplifying Income Statement Presentation by Eliminating the Concept of Extraordinary Items. This ASU eliminates from GAAP the concept of extraordinary items. Subtopic 225-20 previously required that an entity separately classify, present, and disclose extraordinary events and transactions from the results of ordinary operations and show the items separately. The amendments in this ASU are effective for annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015; early adoption is permitted. We have adopted ASU 2015-01; adopting this ASU did not materially impact the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements – Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. This ASU provides guidance to an

5

---

organization’s management, intended to define management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is a substantial doubt about an organization’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide guidance regarding related footnote disclosure. In connection with preparing financial statements for each annual and interim reporting period, an entity’s management should evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. Management’s evaluation should be based on relevant conditions and events that are known and reasonably knowable at the date that the financial statements are issued. For all entities, ASU 2014-15 is effective for annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016; early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2014-15 will have on the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-12, Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after the Requisite Service Period. This ASU standardizes the reporting for these awards by requiring that entities treat these performance targets as a performance condition. As such, the performance target should not be reflected in estimating the grant-date fair value of the award. Compensation cost should be recognized in the period in which it becomes probable that the performance target will be achieved and should represent the compensation cost attributable to the period(s) for which the requisite service has already been rendered. For all entities, ASU 2014-12 is effective for annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015; early adoption is permitted. We have adopted ASU 2014-12; adopting this ASU did not materially impact the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). ASU 2014-09 is principles based guidance that can be applied to all contracts with customers, enhancing comparability of revenue recognition practices across entities, industries, jurisdictions and capital markets. The core principle of the guidance is that entities should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods and services. The guidance details the steps entities should apply to achieve the core principle. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14 approving a one-year deferral of the effective date for its new revenue standard for public and nonpublic entities reporting under US GAAP. Furthermore, in March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, providing clarity to improve operability and understandability of the implementation guidance on principal versus agent considerations. The standard will be effective for public business entities for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods therein. Nonpublic entities would be required to adopt the new standard for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019. Additionally, the FASB approved the option to early adopt prior to the original effective date (fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016). We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2014-09 will have on the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

 

 

4. DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

As of March 31, 2016, the results of operations for campuses that have ceased operations prior to 2015 are presented within discontinued operations. Prior to January 1, 2015, our Transitional Group campuses met the criteria for discontinued operations upon completion of their teach-out. Commencing January 1, 2015, in accordance with new guidance under ASC Topic 360, only campuses that meet the criteria of a strategic shift upon disposal will be classified within discontinued operations, among other criteria. During the first quarter of 2016, we did not have any campuses that met the criteria to be considered as a discontinued operation under the new guidance.

Results of Discontinued Operations

The summary of unaudited results of operations for our discontinued operations for the quarters ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows (dollars in thousands):

 

 

6

---

 

Assets and Liabilities of Discontinued Operations

Assets and liabilities of discontinued operations on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 include the following (dollars in thousands):

 

 

Remaining Lease Obligations of Discontinued Operations

A number of the campuses that ceased operations prior to January 1, 2015 have remaining lease obligations that expire over time with the latest expiration in 2020. A liability is recorded representing the fair value of the remaining lease obligation at the time the space is no longer being utilized. Changes in our future remaining lease obligations, which are reflected within current and non-current liabilities of discontinued operations on our condensed consolidated balance sheets, for the quarters ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows (dollars in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

7

---

5. INVESTMENTS

Investments consist of the following as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 (dollars in thousands):

 

 

 

In the table above, unrealized holding gains (losses) as of March 31, 2016 relate to short-term investments that have been in a continuous unrealized gain (loss) position for less than one year. The table also includes an unrealized holding loss, greater than one year, which relates to our long-term investment in a municipal bond, which is an auction rate security (“ARS”).

Our ARS is comprised of debt obligations issued by states, cities, counties and other governmental entities, which earn federally tax-exempt interest. Our ARS has a stated term to maturity of greater than one year, and as such, we classify our investment in ARS as non-current on our condensed consolidated balance sheets within other assets. Auctions can “fail” when the number of sellers of the security exceeds the buyers for that particular auction period. In the event that an auction fails, the interest rate resets at a rate based on a formula determined by the individual security. The ARS for which auctions have failed continues to accrue interest and is auctioned on a set interval until the auction succeeds, the issuer calls the security, or it matures. As of March 31, 2016, we have determined this investment is at risk for impairment due to the nature of the liquidity of the market over the past several years. Cumulative unrealized losses as of March 31, 2016 amount to $0.5 million and are reflected within accumulated other comprehensive loss as a component of stockholders’ equity. We believe this impairment is temporary, as we do not intend to sell the investment and it is unlikely we will be required to sell the investment before recovery of its amortized cost basis.

Our non-governmental debt securities primarily consist of corporate bonds and commercial paper. Our treasury and federal agencies primarily consist of U.S. Treasury bills and federal home loan debt securities. We do not intend to sell our investments in these securities and it is not likely that we will be required to sell these investments before recovery of the amortized cost basis.

Fair Value Measurements

FASB ASC Topic 820 – Fair Value Measurements establishes a three-tier fair value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value. These tiers include: Level 1, defined as observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets; Level 2, defined as inputs other than quoted prices in active markets that are either directly or indirectly observable; and Level 3, defined as unobservable inputs in which little or no market data exists, therefore requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions.

8

---

As of March 31, 2016, we held investments that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis. These investments (available-for-sale) consist of non-governmental debt securities, treasury and federal agencies and municipal bonds that are publicly traded and our investment in an ARS. Available for sale securities included in Level 2 are estimated based on observable inputs other than quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in inactive markets, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities. Our investment in an ARS is categorized as Level 3 and fair value is estimated utilizing a discounted cash flow analysis as of March 31, 2016 which considers, among other items, the collateralization underlying the security investment, the credit worthiness of the counterparty, the time of expected future cash flows, and the expectation of the next time the security is expected to have a successful auction. The auction event for our ARS investment has failed for multiple years. The security was also compared, when possible, to other observable market data with similar characteristics.

Investments measured at fair value on a recurring basis subject to the disclosure requirements of FASB ASC Topic 820 – Fair Value Measurements at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 were as follows (dollars in thousands):

 

 

The following table presents a rollforward of our assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) as defined in FASB ASC Topic 820 for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 (dollars in thousands):

 

 

Equity Method Investment

Our investment in an equity affiliate, which is recorded within other noncurrent assets on our condensed consolidated balance sheets, represents an international investment in a private company. As of March 31, 2016, our investment in an equity affiliate equated to a 30.7%, or $4.2 million, non-controlling interest in CCKF, a Dublin-based educational technology company providing intelligent adaptive systems to power the delivery of individualized and personalized learning. During the quarters ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, we recorded approximately $0.1 million of loss related to our proportionate investment in CCKF within miscellaneous income (expense) on our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of income (loss) and comprehensive income (loss).

We make periodic operating maintenance payments for our use of intellipath^TM. The total fees paid to CCKF for the quarters ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, were as follows (dollars in thousands):

 

 

Credit Agreement

During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company; its wholly-owned subsidiary, CEC Educational Services, LLC (“CEC-ES”); and the subsidiary guarantors thereunder entered into a Fourth Amendment to its Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of December 30, 2013 (as amended, the “Credit Agreement”) with BMO Harris Bank N.A., in its capacities as the initial lender and letter of credit issuer thereunder and the administrative agent for the lenders which from time to time may be parties to the Credit Agreement, to among other things, decrease the revolving credit facility to $95.0 million and require pre-approval by the lenders for

9

---

each credit extension (other than letter of credit extensions) occurring after December 31, 2015. The revolving credit facility under the Credit Agreement is scheduled to mature on December 31, 2018. The loans and letter of credit obligations under the Credit Agreement are required to be secured by 100% cash collateral. As of March 31, 2016, there were no outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility.

 

 

6. STUDENT RECEIVABLES

Student receivables represent funds owed to us in exchange for the educational services provided to a student. Student receivables are reflected net of an allowance for doubtful accounts and net of deferred tuition revenue as determined on a student-by-student basis at the end of the reporting period. Student receivables, net are reflected on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as components of both current and non-current assets. We do not accrue interest on past due student receivables; interest is recorded only upon collection.

Generally, a student receivable balance is written off once it reaches greater than 90 days past due. Although we analyze past due receivables, it is not practical to provide an aging of our non-current student receivable balances as a result of the methodology utilized in determining our earned student receivable balances. Student receivables are recognized on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as they are deemed earned over the course of a student’s program and/or term, and therefore cash collections are not applied against specifically dated transactions.

Our standard student receivable allowance estimation methodology considers a number of factors that, based on our collection experience, we believe have an impact on our repayment risk and ability to collect student receivables. Changes in the trends in any of these factors may impact our estimate of the allowance for doubtful accounts. These factors include, but are not limited to: internal repayment history, repayment practices of previous extended payment programs and information provided by a third-party institution who previously offered similar extended payment programs, changes in the current economic, legislative or regulatory environments and credit worthiness of our students. These factors are monitored and assessed on a regular basis. Overall, our allowance estimation process for student receivables is validated by trending analysis and comparing estimated and actual performance. 

Student Receivables Under Extended Payment Plans and Recourse Loan Agreements

To assist students in completing their educational programs, we had previously provided extended payment plans to certain students and also had loan agreements with Sallie Mae and Stillwater National Bank and Trust Company (“Stillwater”) which required us to repurchase loans originated by them to our students after a certain period of time. We discontinued providing extended payment plans to students during the first quarter of 2011 and the recourse loan agreements with Sallie Mae and Stillwater ended in March 2008 and April 2007, respectively.

As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the amount of non-current student receivables under these programs, net of allowance for doubtful accounts and net of deferred tuition revenue, was $3.7 million and $4.0 million, respectively.

Student Receivables Valuation Allowance

Changes in our current and non-current receivables allowance for the quarters ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows (dollars in thousands):

 

 

Fair Value Measurements

The carrying amount reported in our condensed consolidated balance sheets for the current portion of student receivables approximates fair value because of the nature of these financial instruments as they generally have short maturity periods. It is not practicable to estimate the fair value of the non-current portion of student receivables, since observable market data is not readily available, and no reasonable estimation methodology exists.

 

 

10

---

7. RESTRUCTURING CHARGES

During the past several years, we have carried out reductions in force related to the continued reorganization of our corporate and campus functions to better align with current total enrollments and made decisions to teach out a number of campuses, meaning gradually close the campuses through an orderly process. As part of the process to wind down these teach-out campuses, the Company also announced that it will align its corporate overhead to support a more streamlined and focused operating entity. Most notably, we have recorded charges within our Transitional Group segment and our corporate functions as we continue to align our overall management structure. Each of our teach-out campuses offer current students the reasonable opportunity to complete their course of study. The majority of these teach-out campuses are expected to cease operations by 2017 with the remainder expected to cease operations in 2018.

The following table details the changes in our accrual for severance and related costs associated with all restructuring events for our continuing operations during the quarters ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 (dollars in thousands):

 

 

Severance and related expenses for the quarters ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 by reporting segment is as follows (dollars in thousands):

 

 

The current portion of the accrual for severance and related charges was $7.8 million and $1.6 million as of March 31, 2016 and March 31, 2015, respectively, which is recorded within current accrued expenses – payroll and related benefits; the long-term portion of $6.6 million and $1.0 million, respectively, is recorded within other non-current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. In addition, as of March 31, 2016, we have accrued approximately $1.8 million related to retention bonuses that have been offered to certain employees. These amounts will be recorded ratably over the period the employees are retained.

In addition to the severance charges detailed above, a number of the teach-out campuses will have remaining lease obligations following the eventual campus closure, with the longest lease term being through 2023. The total remaining estimated charge as of March 31, 2016, for all restructuring events reported within continuing operations related to the remaining lease obligation for these leases, once the campus completes the close process, and adjusted for possible lease buyouts and sublease assumptions is approximately $50 million - $60 million. The amount related to each campus will be recorded at each campus closure date based on current estimates and assumptions related to the amount and timing of sublease income. This is in addition to approximately $23.6 million of charges related to remaining obligations that were recorded during 2015 through the first quarter of 2016.

 

 

8. CONTINGENCIES

An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $1.9 million and $2.7 million at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, is presented within other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

11

---

We record a liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, at least quarterly, developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that was previously accrued, and make adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. We may be unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss due to various reasons, including, among others: (1) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (2) if the proceedings are in early stages; (3) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions, or settlements; (4) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; and (5) if there are novel or unsettled legal theories presented. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any.

Litigation

We are, or were, a party to the following legal proceedings that we consider to be outside the scope of ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. An unfavorable outcome of any one or more of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Student Litigation

Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that California Culinary Academy (“CCA”) materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided graduates with career placement services for life. The class purports to consist of persons who executed Parent Plus loans or co-signed loans for students who attended CCA at any time between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two separate orders granting the motion to strike the class allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court’s orders. On May 9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider its order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of plaintiffs’ claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the Court’s ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class allegations. On February 4, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order striking the class allegations and the case has since been remitted back to the trial court for further proceedings as to the seven named plaintiffs.  

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because, among other things, our potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. (“WCI”) and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”) and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI’s placement statistics, students’ employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs’ claims under Oregon’s UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of plaintiff’s UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6,

12

---

2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court’s Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI’s motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and on January 21, 2016, the appellate court reversed the trial court and held that the claims by the 1,062 individual class members referenced above should be compelled to arbitration.  

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

False Claims Act

United States of America, ex rel. Melissa Simms Powell, et al. v. American InterContinental University, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Career Education Corp., a Delaware Corporation and John Doe Nos. 1-100. On July 28, 2009, we were served with a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The complaint was originally filed under seal on July 14, 2008 by four former employees of the Dunwoody campus of our American InterContinental University on behalf of themselves and the federal government. On July 27, 2009, the Court ordered the complaint unsealed and we were notified that the U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in the action. When the federal government declines to intervene in a False Claims Act action, as it has done in this case, the private plaintiffs (or “relators”) may elect to pursue the litigation on behalf of the federal government and, if they are successful, receive a portion of the federal government’s recovery. The action alleges violations of the False Claims Act and promissory fraud, including allegedly providing false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. Relators claim that defendants’ conduct caused the government to pay federal funds to defendants and to make payments to third-party lenders, which the government would not have made if not for defendants’ alleged violation of the law. Relators seek treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. On July 12, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction, the claims related to incentive compensation and proof of graduation. Thus, the only claim that remained pending against defendants was based on relators’ contention that defendants misled the school’s accreditor, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, during the accreditation process. On December 16, 2013, we filed a motion for summary judgment on a variety of substantive grounds. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in our favor. On October 2, 2014, relators filed a notice of appeal. The appeal was stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Carter, No. 12-1497. The Supreme Court issued its decision and relators moved to lift the stay and remand the case to the district court. The case has been remanded to the district court. The district court is currently considering additional arguments regarding whether it has jurisdiction over relators’ remaining claims.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise on remand to the district court, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated, if we were to be found liable. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

United States of America, ex rel. Brent M. Nelson v. Career Education Corporation, Sanford-Brown, Ltd., and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. On April 18, 2013, defendants were served with an amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The original complaint was filed under seal on July 30, 2012 by a former employee of Sanford-Brown College Milwaukee on behalf of himself and the federal government. On February 27, 2013, the Court ordered the complaint unsealed and we were notified that the U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in the action. After the federal government declined to intervene in this case, the relator elected to pursue the litigation on behalf of the federal government. If he is successful he would receive a portion of the federal government’s recovery. An amended complaint was filed by the relator on April 12, 2013 and alleges violations of the False Claims Act, including allegedly providing false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. Relator claims that defendants’ conduct caused the government to pay federal funds to defendants, and to make payments to third-party lenders, which the government would not have made if not for defendants’ alleged violation of the law. Relator seeks treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. On June 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on a variety of grounds. The Court ruled on that motion, dismissing CEC from the case and dismissing several of the relator’s factual claims. On November 27, 2013, Sanford Brown, LTD., and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., the remaining Company defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to prior public disclosures of the relator’s alleged claims. On March 17, 2014, the Court granted this motion in part, limiting the timeframe and geographical scope of the relator’s claims. On June 13, 2014, the Court granted the remaining Company defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in their favor. On July 9, 2014, relator filed a notice of appeal. On June 8, 2015, the appellate court affirmed the district court. On July 2, 2015, relator filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied on August 4, 2015. On December 2, 2015, relator filed his petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Defendants filed their opposition to the petition on February 3, 2016.    

13

---

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise on appeal, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

United States of America, ex rel. Ann Marie Rega v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On May 16, 2014, Relator Ann Marie Rega, a former employee of Sanford-Brown Iselin, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and almost all of the Company’s individual schools on behalf of herself and the federal government. She alleges claims under the False Claims Act, including allegedly providing false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. Relator claims that defendants’ conduct caused the government to pay federal funds to defendants, and to make payments to third-party lenders, which the government would not have made if not for defendants’ alleged violation of the law. Relator seeks treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. Relator failed to comply with the statutory requirement that all False Claims Act cases be filed under seal. On June 16, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as to relator for failure to file her complaint under seal in accordance with the requirements of the False Claims Act. The motion is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court.

Because the matter is in its early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated, if we were to be found liable. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

Employment Litigation

Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation. On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation (“ARSC”) Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan. On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel’s decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied.

The case now is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC’s termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parties have completed fact discovery as to the issue of liability. On March 24, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted on December 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on January 16, 2016.  

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise on appeal, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

Other Litigation

In addition to the legal proceedings and other matters described above, we are also subject to a variety of other claims, lawsuits and investigations that arise from time to time out of the conduct of our business, including, but not limited to, claims involving prospective students, students or graduates, alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, both individually and on behalf of a putative class, and routine employment matters. While we currently believe that such claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations, these other matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable final outcome to occur in any one or more of these matters, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial position, cash flows, and the results of operations for the period in which the effect becomes probable and reasonably estimable.

State Investigations

The Attorney General of Connecticut is serving as the point of contact for inquiries received from the attorneys general of the following: Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington (January 24, 2014); Illinois (December 9, 2011); Tennessee (February 7, 2014); Hawaii (May 28, 2014 ); New Mexico (May 2014); Maryland (March 16, 2015); and the District of Columbia (June 3, 2015) (these 18 attorneys general are collectively

14

---

referred to as the “Multi-State AGs”). In addition, the Company has received inquiries from the attorneys general of Florida (November 5, 2010), Massachusetts (September 27, 2012), Colorado (August 27, 2013) and Minnesota (September 18, 2014). The inquiries are civil investigative demands or subpoenas which relate to the investigation by the attorneys general of whether the Company and its schools have complied with certain state consumer protection laws, and generally focus on the Company's practices relating to the recruitment of students, graduate placement statistics, graduate certification and licensing results and student lending activities, among other matters. Depending on the state, the documents and information sought by the attorneys general in connection with their investigations cover time periods as early as 2006 to the present. The Company intends to cooperate with the states involved with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible. In this regard, over the past several months the Company has participated in several meetings with representatives of the Multi-State AGs about the Company’s business and to engage in a dialogue towards a resolution of these inquiries.

We cannot predict the scope, duration or outcome of these attorney general investigations. At the conclusion of any of these matters, the Company or certain of its schools may be subject to claims of failure to comply with state laws or regulations and may be required to pay significant financial penalties and/or curtail or modify their operations. Other state attorneys general may also initiate inquiries into the Company or its schools. In addition, all of the Company’s institutions have been issued provisional program participation agreements that extend through December 31, 2016.  Each of our institutions will need to apply for recertification by September 30, 2016 in order to continue its eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs. We cannot predict whether, or to what extent, any of these inquiries or future resolutions of these inquiries might impact our Title IV eligibility. Depending on the circumstances of any resolution of these inquiries, ED may revoke, limit, suspend, delay or deny the institution’s or all of the Company’s institutions’ Title IV eligibility, or impose fines. If any of the foregoing occurs, our business, reputation, financial position, cash flows and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential monetary or non-monetary impact these investigations might have on the Company because it is uncertain what remedies, if any, these regulators might ultimately seek in connection with these investigations.

In addition to the aforementioned inquiries, from time to time, we receive informal requests from state Attorneys General and other government agencies relating to specific complaints they have received from students or former students which seek information about the student, our programs, and other matters relating to our activities in the relevant state. These requests can be broad and time consuming to respond to, and there is a risk that they could expand and/or lead to a formal inquiry or investigation into our practices in a particular state.

Federal Trade Commission Inquiry

On August 20, 2015, the Company received a request for information pursuant to a Civil Investigative Demand from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). The request was made pursuant to a November 2013 resolution by the FTC directing an investigation to determine whether unnamed persons, partnerships, corporations, or others have engaged or are engaging in deceptive or unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in the advertising, marketing or sale of secondary or postsecondary educational products or services, or educational accreditation products or services. The information request requires the Company to provide documents and information regarding a broad spectrum of the business and practices of its subsidiaries and institutions for the time period of January 1, 2010 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the FTC with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible.

Because the FTC inquiry is in the early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, we cannot predict the outcome of the inquiry. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential monetary or non-monetary impact this inquiry might have on the Company because it is uncertain what remedies, if any, the FTC might ultimately seek in connection with this inquiry.

Regulatory Matters

ED Inquiry and HCM1 Status

 

In December 2011, the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) advised the Company that it is conducting an inquiry concerning possible violations of ED misrepresentation regulations related to placement rates reported by certain of the Company’s institutions to accrediting bodies, students and potential students. This inquiry stems from the Company’s self-reporting to ED of its internal investigation into student placement determination practices at the Company’s previous Health Education segment campuses and review of placement determination practices at all of the Company’s other domestic campuses in 2011. The Company has been cooperating with ED in connection with this inquiry. If ED determines that the Company or any of its institutions violated ED misrepresentation regulations with regard to the publication or reporting of placement rates or other disclosures to students or prospective students or finds any other basis in the materials we are providing, ED may revoke, limit, suspend, delay or deny the institution’s or all of the Company’s institutions Title IV eligibility, or impose fines. In addition, all of the Company’s institutions have been issued provisional program participation agreements that extend through December 31, 2016. Each of our institutions will need to apply for recertification by September 30, 2016 in order to continue its eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs. We cannot predict whether, or to what extent, ED’s inquiry might impact this recertification process.

15

---

In December 2011, ED also moved all of the Company’s institutions from the “advance” method of payment of Title IV Program funds to cash monitoring status (referred to as Heightened Cash Monitoring 1, or HCM1, status). Although the Company’s prior practices substantially conformed to the requirements of this more restrictive method of drawing down students’ Title IV Program funds, if ED finds violations of the Higher Education Act or related regulations, ED may impose monetary or program level sanctions, impose some period of delay in the Company’s receipt of Title IV funds or transfer the Company’s schools to the “reimbursement” or Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 (“HCM2”) methods of payment of Title IV Program funds. While on HCM2 status, an institution must disburse its own funds to students, document th